h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Errors can occur in the translation of DNA to messenger RNA, but rather than being necessary for evolution to occur, such errors have no effect on it for DNA-based organisms, and can't be referred to as mutations. Such random errors may affect the operation of the cell, and henceforth its survival, but they have no effect on the gentic makeup of the cell itself, or of any offsrping.

The DNA for daughter cells is copied from directly from the DNA of the parent cell during cell division, *not* from RNA. I'm astounded that anyone likely to know that such things as mRNA, tRNA and rRNA even exist (let alone know anything about what they may be for) wouldn't know that, since it's a hugely basic fact.

Considering the Darwin quote
"... silently and *insensibly* working, ..."
I'm at a loss to see how anyone vaguely literate can interpret that to imply a *conscious* process.

*Omnipresent*, I'd accept, since it's an inherent property of living systems, but no more omnipresent than liquid water, and hardly godlike.

Evolution clearly isn't *omnipotent*, since life, death and breeding contain a significant degree of chance. What on earth is the difference between *omnipotent* and *all powerful* supposed to be?

Anyone with even a basic knowledge of evolution realises that 'good' and 'bad' (note *NOT* 'good and *evil*' ) refer to the matter of reproductive success.
The bad/evil difference is significant - a computer can tell if someone is a good or *bad* chess player, but it can't tell if they're a good or *evil* chess player.

Anyone who understood the religious climate at the time of the publication of the Origin of Species (and which contributed to Darwin's long delay before publication) would understand why he may have tried at times to make his theory palatable to the audience at the time.

The article doesn't refute Darwin - it misinterprets what little of him it quotes, and the few 'examples' presented seem in general to postdate him.

However, I should say that the article *is* consistent, it's just a little unfortunate that it's consistently ignorant, inaccurate and biased rubbish.